Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zigbee Based Wireless Sensor Networks For Smart Campus: Journal
Zigbee Based Wireless Sensor Networks For Smart Campus: Journal
Abstract: A network which connects a bunch of distributed low-power sensor nodes together, with each
node dedicated to a predefined operation can be visualized as a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN). The
network must have the capability of gathering and transferring the data generated by end nodes efficiently.
The major parts of Zigbee based LR-WPAN (Low Range-Wireless Personal Area Network) are-
coordinator, routers and end devices. In this paper the authors concentrated on Zigbee based LR-WPAN
and analyzed the effect of static and dynamic state of Zigbee PAN Coordinator on the performance of the
network. Here the analysis is made on 3 topologies namely- star, mesh and tree with the help of OPNET
modeler simulations. Authors suggested that instead of making the end devices dynamic, the coordinator
can roam around the network area more easily, giving better global network performance over static
coordinator network in terms of throughput and end-to-end delay. For different topologies, different
impacts on network parameters are obtained. The main aim of this work is to evaluate, through
simulations, the effect of coordinator mobility in a ZigBee/IEEE 802.15.4 based wireless personal area
network and allow the people to mould the network topology as per the requirement and performance
obtained here.
Keywords: WSN, mobile coordinator, star, mesh and tree topologies, Throughput, End to End delay.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays wireless sensor technology is becoming a popular way to create wireless personal area
network (WPAN) due to its low cost, low power consumption applications, convenience of using wireless
signals in open areas such as office space or home rather than having to lay out wires and scalability but energy-
saving stays a critical design issue. [1] It has applications in environment monitoring, military operation,
intelligent home, medical and health and other commercial field. [2], [3], [4].Devices in a LR-WPAN (Low-
range wireless personal area network) can be classified as full function devices (FFDs) and reduced function
devices (RFDs). [5] One device is designated as the PAN coordinator (FFD) which is responsible for monitoring
the network activities and its devices, it guides and instructs the data flow across the network; others are routers
and end nodes (RFDs). A FFD monitors the whole network via control packets and handles security/failure
cases. It has the capability of becoming a PAN coordinator or associating with an existing PAN coordinator. A
RFD can only relay the data but cannot change the task on its own assigned to it.
Zigbee and IEEE 802.15.4 are not the same. [6],[7] It is a standard base network protocol, widely used
for LR-WPAN and supported solely by Zigbee alliance using the transported services of IEEE 802.15.4 network
specifications. Zigbee protocol stack has basically 4 layers- application, network and security, MAC layer and
physical layer. IEEE defined only latter two for LR-WPAN while former two are provided by Zigbee Alliance.
Network and security layer also includes the application framework necessary for application processing.
Zigbee networks can support a large number of nodes; approx. 64,000 with dynamic routing and single
coordinator. Every node can be configured as a multifunction device with at most 240 applications running at a
time. [8] The performance of the network depends on the topology employed which is highly application
specific. Here authors tried to simulate via OPNET modeler the impact of various topologies on the global MAC
statistics like throughput, global application statistics like end-to-end delay and global network statistics like
number of hops which represents average number of hops travelled by application traffic in PAN. Most of the
advanced applications of Zigbee Networks like remote location event sensing deploy mobility of the nodes
rather than static structure.[9],[10] Authors think that the mobility of the prime node (PAN coordinator) greatly
affects the performance of the system.
In section II, authors threw light on the Zigbee specification and its conjunction with IEEE 802.15.4, its
protocol architecture and the parameters of each layer that we needed and configured in the study presented. In
section III, the three major components of Zigbee based LR-WPAN are briefed and a detailed discussion about
each topology of this network is carried out. Section IV demonstrates the simulation scenarios we have taken
along with an example of its application. In section V simulation results in terms of throughput and end-to-end
delay are given along with the interpretations.
3.1.2 Zigbee Router (ZR): A Zigbee Router can act as an intermediate device, passing on data from other
devices as well as running an application function.
3.1.3 Zigbee End devices (ZED): Its job is to communicate with the parent node (either the Coordinator or a
Router).It cannot relay data from other devices. This relationship allows the node to be asleep a significant
amount of the time thereby giving long battery life. A ZED requires the least amount of memory, and so it is
cheaper as compared to ZC or ZR.
Pros Cons
Star 1. Easy to synchronize 1. Small scale
2. Support low power operation
3. Low latency
Tree 1. Low routing cost 1. Route reconstruction is
2. Allow multihop costly
communication 2. Latency may be quite long
Mesh 1. Robust multihop 1. Routes discovery is costly
communication 2. Needs storage for routing
2. Network is more flexible table
3. Lower latency
Table 1: Pros and Cons of Topologies
In mesh and tree, if 1 node sends data and in the path if both coordinator and router are available for
forwarding the traffic then both will do and the destination will receive from both the same traffic but with some
noise and quality degrades slightly. While in star, for such a situation only coordinator will forward the traffic,
router won‟t. Hence the traffic will reach the destination with accuracy.
Fig-3
Fig-4
Fig-5
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
We have considered Throughput and End to End delay as the key parameters for comparing efficiency
between Star, Mesh and Tree topologies.
5.1 Throughput:
The Throughput or Network throughput is the rate of successful message delivery over a
communication channel. This data may be delivered over a physical or logical link, or pass through a certain
network node. It is usually measured in bits per second bit/s or bps. During the simulation throughput as a global
statistics has been taken so any object could contribute to its value as it gives a general idea of the overall
throughput of the system.[17]
Fig 6
Fig 7
Fig 8
5.2.2 End to End delay: Dynamic Zigbee Coordinator:
ZC as Dynamic, Mesh topology is having least End to End and has a better performance
as compared to Static ZC.
Fig 9
Network Topologies Throughput End-End delay
Star Static ZC-29000bits/s Static ZC- 0.0142 sec
Dym ZC- 28000bits/s Dym ZC- 0.0135 sec
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper we have gone through several analysis for achieving optimum end to end delay and
throughput for smart campus. By making the coordinator as dynamic in Zigbee based LR-WPAN, throughput of
tree topology increases considerably as compared to mesh and star topologies. Our OPNET results say that by
using dynamic coordinator minimum end-to-end delay is achieved. In dynamic coordinator end to end delay
reduces when compared to static, hence when end to end delay reduces automatically energy consumption also
reduces . We conclude that our analysis achieved good performance in terms of throughput and end-to-end delay
for dynamic tree topology as compared to any other. Further this work can be extended for large scale WSNs.
Acknowledgement
It is our sincere obligation to thank our well-wishers Dr. N.Shekar V Shet, Associate Professor,Dept of
Electronics and Communication Engineering and Sarwesh P, PhD student Electronics and Communication
Engineering, NITK,Surathkal(Karnataka) India.
REFERENCES
[1] Lamia Kaddar and Ahmed Mehaoua , „ESTREL: transmission and reception energy saving model for wireless ad-hoc
networks‟, In proceeding of: Local Computer Networks, 2007. LCN 2007, 32nd IEEE Conference.
[2] R. Abileah and D. Lewis, “Monitoring high seas fisheries with long range passive acoustic sensors”, in proceedings
of MTS/IEEE „Prospects for the 21st century‟ conference (OCEANS‟96),vol.1,pp. 378-382, fort
Lauderdale,Fla,USA,September 1996.
[3] Norman A. Benjamin and Dr. Suresh S., “Performance of Hierarchial agent based WSMN for patient Health
monitoring”, World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC 2009).
[4] S.N. Simic and S. Sastry, “Distributed environmental monitoring using sensor networks “, in proceedings of the 2 nd
international workshop on information processing in sensor networks (IPSN‟03) , April 2003.
[5] “Wireless sensor network white paper-Tetcos”, www.tetcos.com/Enhancing_Throughput_of_WSNs.pdf
[6] Zigbee-Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigBee
[7] IEEE 802.15.4-wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4
[8] Zigbee white paper- AMX, www.amx.com//assets/whitePapers/AMX.ZigBee.White.Paper.pdf
[9] A. Willig, K. Matheus, and A. Wolisz, “Wireless technology in industrial networks,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 93, no.6, pp.
1130–1151, Jun. 2005.
[10] J. Lee, C. Chuang, and C. Shen, “Applications of short-range wireless technologies to industrial automation: A
Zigbee approach,” inProc. IEEE AICT, 2009, pp. 15
[11] ”Zigbee Overview”- http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/what-is-zigbee-technology
[12] “Zigbee Stack Protocol”-http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/what-is-zigbee-technology?page=3
[13] “Zigbee Topologies”-http://wireless.arcada.fi/MOBWI/material/PAN_5_2.html
[14] C. Marghescu,M. P Antazica, A.Brodeala and P. Svasta :Simulation of a Wireless Sensor Network Using
OPNET –in proceedings of 2011 IEEE 17th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic
Packaging (SIITME).
[15] Fig 1-Harsh Dhaka, Atishay Jain, Karun Verma, Impact of Coordinator Mobility on the throughput in a Zigbee Mesh
Networks-in proceedings of 2010 IEEE 2nd International Advance Computing Conference.
[16] Table 3-Boris Mihajlov and Mitko Bogdanoski., Overview and Analysis of the Performances of ZigBee based
Wireless Sensor Networks in proceedings of International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume
29– No.12, September 2011
[17] “Throughput” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throughput